Recently, I have been meditating on the general concepts of Time, Skills, Resources, and People and how they interplay to produce desired outcomes. Initially, these thoughts were rooted in private considerations—how best to manipulate these factors for beneficial results. But, as is often the case, my reflections wandered to a familiar domain: public policy.

Having invested the last 15 years of my life working in, studying, learning within, and partnering in the area of government affairs and public policy, I can’t help but view concepts through this lens. It’s second nature for me to contextualize almost anything within the framework of public policy, whether or not they are explicitly connected. Interestingly, these four factors—Time, Skills, Resources, and People—are implied in almost every aspect of policy, yet they are rarely purposefully factored in during the pursuit of policy goals.

At a fundamental level, I believe exploring these four factors individually and applying them to public policy will be incredibly useful for anyone in this field—whether you work directly in public policy, study it academically, or intersect with it in a cross-functional capacity.

Also, since recent research suggests that the adult attention span now averages 8.25 seconds, I’ll present this exploration as a four-part series. My hope is that this structure will not only respect your time but also encourage deeper thought and engagement with each concept.

Time – The Irreplaceable currency of policy:

Time is the irreplaceable currency of policy. It shapes every stage of policymaking—from ideation to implementation and ultimately to its impact. Time can be both a ruthless constraint and a fertile enabler, depending on how it is managed. And in many ways, it defines the quality of governance. Electoral cycles, such as Nigeria’s four-year tenure system, amplify the dilemma. Politicians are driven by the dual pressures of delivering on campaign promises and securing their political future. Governance is thus compressed into the early years of an administration, while the latter half is often consumed by politicking and re-election strategies. When this rhythm dominates, the quality of policymaking suffers, and both urgency and deliberation are compromised.

Let’s take the contrasting outcomes of Nigeria’s telecoms and power sector reforms as an example. The telecoms privatization process in the early 2000s was celebrated for its methodical approach. Policymakers took time to study successful models from other nations, engage stakeholders, and craft a framework that invited investment and competition while ensuring scalability. The results speak for themselves: exponential growth in the telecoms industry, democratized communication, and substantial contributions to GDP.

Now compare this to the privatization of the power sector, where political pressure to deliver quick wins led to a rushed process riddled with gaps in planning, regulation, and stakeholder alignment. Today, the consequences remain stark—a sector struggling to meet the energy needs of the nation. The difference? Time wasn’t just a factor; it was the determining factor. The telecoms policy had the time to grow into a masterpiece, while the power sector effort was, at best, an unfinished sketch hurriedly framed for display.

It’s also important to look at how time interplays with emergencies versus long-term policy goals. Emergencies demand urgency. Take, for instance, the rapid global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. It showed what could be achieved under immense time pressure when clarity of purpose, expertise, and political will align. On the flip side, long-term policies—like those targeting climate change or infrastructure—require patience, careful phasing, and sustained commitment across multiple administrations. Yet, such policies often fall victim to the short-termism imposed by electoral cycles and political expediency.

This begs the question: how can policymakers manage time effectively? At the initiation stage, the question of time must always be laid bare. Does the policy demand immediate action or a phased approach? Can it be implemented effectively within an electoral cycle, or does it need structures to safeguard continuity beyond political tenures? And just as crucially, is society ready to absorb and support the policy in the given timeframe?

Here in Nigeria, we jokingly say that the first two years of any administration are for governance, while the last two are for politics. It’s funny because it’s true. But this reality also lays bare why many policies fail—they are victims of the limited, unstrategic use of time. A rushed policy is like an undercooked meal; even with the finest ingredients, it falls short of its potential. Conversely, a well-paced policy, even one with modest resources, can yield enduring results.

In the end, time is not just a ticking clock—it is the backbone of effective governance. It demands deliberate planning, careful sequencing, and foresight. Policymakers must learn to respect time, embrace it as a partner, and resist the temptation to sacrifice the integrity of long-term solutions for short-term political gains. A time-conscious approach ensures policies are not just reactive but resilient, capable of outlasting the tenure of any single administration and truly driving societal progress.